Professional Documents
Culture Documents
//
Terry
(Terry),
and
Americas
Criminal
Defense
Group
forum
selection
clause
to
their
clients,
and
because
1:10CV110
to
that
hearing,
however,
Browns
mother,
Laverne
Wright-Ochoa, sought to retain counsel for her son. From her home
in New York, she discovered the website of ACDG. As it still does
today, ACDGs website advertised that the firm was nationwide and
provided criminal defense in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.2 ACDGs website does not list a mailing or physical
address, soliciting contact only through email or a toll-free
telephone number. In reality, ACDG is a California firm and
Http://www.americascriminaldefense.com/html/about.html (last
visited Oct. 7, 2010)(With attorneys throughout the nation,
America's Criminal Defense Group is able to provide personal legal
representation wherever you live.).
2
1:10CV110
See Lane v. W. Va. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 295 S.E.2d 670
(W. Va. 1982)(denying admission to practice without examination to
California attorney on grounds that admission requirements in
California are not substantially the same as West Virginias
standards, specifically California provisions allowing study at
unaccredited or correspondence schools).
3
1:10CV110
and
received
approximately
$5,400
from
ACDG
for
his
into
separate
contract
with
Brown
or
any
of
his
relatives.5
Http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/Bd of Law/lawprac.htm.
1:10CV110
they
assert
that
the
defendants
breached
their
1:10CV110
the
plaintiffs
allege
that
the
representation
1:10CV110
Va.
Jan.
8,
2010)(noting
inconsistent
Fourth
Circuit
precedent on choice of law question, but that test and result are
identical
under
either
West
Virginia
or
federal
if
courts
it
presume
covers
all
that
of
mandatory
the
forum
plaintiffs
selection
claims,
is
1:10CV110
1:10CV110
plaintiffs
argue
clause
that,
is
mandatory
despite
its
and
covers
relatively
the
broad
language, the forum selection clause does not cover all the claims
of all the plaintiffs. They argue that, because Lael Brown and
Charles Browne never signed the contract, its provisions are
unenforceable against them.
However, Lael Brown was the intended beneficiary of the
contract, and thus subject to its terms. See Watkins v. M/V LONDON
SENATOR, 112 F.Supp.2d 511, 520 (E.D.Va. 2000)(citing TAAG Linhas
Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1351,
1354 (9th Cir. 1990); 4 Corbin on Contracts 819, p. 277 (1951)).
Similarly, although Charles Brownes signature does not appear on
the final page of the parties agreement, he initialed several
1:10CV110
The
defendants
correctly
note
that,
for
forum
1:10CV110
America,
Inc.,
2009)(unpublished)(holding
agreement
to
litigate
in
335
North
Fed.Appx.
Carolina
Amsterdam).
Nor
356
college
do
the
(4th
student
Cir.
to
plaintiffs
11
1:10CV110
the
provision
was
not
adequately
communicated
to
the
1:10CV110
attorney-client
disputes.
Id.
at
526-537
(brackets
and
1:10CV110
14
1:10CV110
terms
Partipilo,
reasonably
of
and
the
prospective
Terry
failed
communicate
the
in
representation.
this
forum
15
duty,
selection
Because
they
ACDG,
failed
clause
to
to
the
1:10CV110
Caperton,
679
S.E.2d
at
236.
Accordingly,
the
if
the
clause
had
been
adequately
explained,
the
this
states
ability
to
protect
its
citizens
from
also
Bates
v.
State
Bar
of
Arizona,
433
U.S.
350,
361
1:10CV110
an
important
part
of
multifaceted
statutory,
10
1:10CV110
(Va.
1998)(prohibiting
such
assignments
safeguards
the
1:10CV110
1:10CV110
11
1:10CV110
matter
in
West
Virginia.
This
undertaking
is
of
Counsel,
W.
Va.
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure
(1981,
as
12
1:10CV110
13
1:10CV110
23